Legalize suppressors thread!!! Please move to general discussion
- Thread starter Ironman6067
- Start date
IMHO,
There's only so much we can sway the public at large.
I agree with posters above,
*Separate license, registered (The states had them registered, I think it should be a given for us)
*Storage requirement same as restricted firearm
*Tax stamp, Stick $200, $500, $1k There will be people buying them
Anti will always use the movies (as much as they're not realistically true)
I believe mag capacity has less for safety than sound dampeners
There's only so much we can sway the public at large.
I agree with posters above,
*Separate license, registered (The states had them registered, I think it should be a given for us)
*Storage requirement same as restricted firearm
*Tax stamp, Stick $200, $500, $1k There will be people buying them
Anti will always use the movies (as much as they're not realistically true)
I believe mag capacity has less for safety than sound dampeners
For the record I don't want any restrictions...
On smaller calibers it I would have to rule it out by too much noise reduction, this argument could be turned around on us...W have to be semi-reasonable/compromising to the opposition to this argument. 22lr doesn't make the noise that a 308 does...
I don't see the need for registration or restriction of sound suppressors at all. Frankly, they should be mandatory for nearly all firearms use.
I see no difference between a sound suppressor on a firearm and a muffler on a car.
They both serve to save the precious hearing of the operator of the mechanical device, and all those around who must hear its noise. The right and legitimate argument for sound suppressors is as a matter of health and safety.
Can you imagine having to live with cars and no mufflers? Or being required to wear hearing protection while driving? That is what is required of members of the firearms community who do not wish to go deaf.
UncleMax
Edit: Imagine a world where suppressors are mandatory. We'd have guys drilling holes in their suppressors for more 'bang' just like some Harley owners do for more noise out of their mufflers...
I see no difference between a sound suppressor on a firearm and a muffler on a car.
They both serve to save the precious hearing of the operator of the mechanical device, and all those around who must hear its noise. The right and legitimate argument for sound suppressors is as a matter of health and safety.
Can you imagine having to live with cars and no mufflers? Or being required to wear hearing protection while driving? That is what is required of members of the firearms community who do not wish to go deaf.
UncleMax
Edit: Imagine a world where suppressors are mandatory. We'd have guys drilling holes in their suppressors for more 'bang' just like some Harley owners do for more noise out of their mufflers...
I don't see the need for registration or restriction of sound suppressors at all. Frankly, they should be mandatory for nearly all firearms use.
I see no difference between a sound suppressor on a firearm and a muffler on a car.
They both serve to save the precious hearing of the operator of the mechanical device, and all those around who must hear its noise. The right and legitimate argument for sound suppressors is as a matter of health and safety.
Can you imagine having to live with cars and no mufflers? Or being required to wear hearing protection while driving? That is what is required of members of the firearms community who do not wish to go deaf.
UncleMax
Edit: Imagine a world where suppressors are mandatory. We'd have guys drilling holes in their suppressors for more 'bang' just like some Harley owners do for more noise out of their mufflers...
Put your argument in reverse and think how the ant's will argue against it. They will come out with argument of how someone can run around shooting people and know one will ever hear the shooter. This is why we have a legal accepted noise levels, we can win this, but we can't get it all..
You're quite right, Leibermuster; from a marketing perspective, however, in the argument in favour of legalizing sound suppressors it merely has to be emphasized that, like cars with mufflers, firearms with sound suppressors would not be silent. We would still be able to hear them just as we can hear traffic, plain as day. As far as I know, the only cars that are noiseless are all-electric cars, and thank God they're not popular yet!
The likelihood of suppressors being legalized, frankly, is a low-priority longshot compared to the numerous other battles we must first face and win.
The strongest argument still remains one of health and safety while operating very loud machinery.
UncleMax
Edit: Oh, and I figure the majority of situations in which people claim to hear gunshots are time-wasting false-alarms. Hearing 'gunshots' is a lousy way to address potential public safety concerns.
To make it easier could we say suppressors should only ne used on center fires? Not the 5.56mm rule you said earlier?
Sure
but remember the RCMP labs will have to approve as always...think about that...
- Location
- South of your border
What one needs is a website to campaign and inform the public from. Look at what AAC has done down South to better inform everyone about Suppressors http://www.aaccanu.com/ We need something similar professional attractive looking website with lots of high quality peer reviewed information. Call the website silencecanada.ca or something. Canadian Black Rifle Mag will be going down South this summer to play with suppressors and would be well interested in working anyone who actively wants to try an legalize them up here.
To get rid of the supersonic crack you need subsonic, but with the right silencer you can get it seriously quiet.
[youtube]5GbjXvH7xJA&feature=related[/youtube]
I was trolling around the interweb and came across this little nugget which may be very useful to this discussion.
This gentleman is an MD and he did a study using all the correct equipment and test protocol and he discovered that silencers are considerably more effective at protecting hearing than even the best ear protection. In fact he notes that for some firearms current hearing protection does not reduce the noise below the level for hearing damage at all.
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/18/0194599811398872.abstract
This doctor knows more about hearing loss and damage than any politician or cop and he also knows how to properly collect sound data from suppressed firearms.
His study shows that current hearing protection is not sufficient to prevent hearing damage but sound suppressors are able to prevent hearing damage. This is the technical smoking gun .....
This gentleman is an MD and he did a study using all the correct equipment and test protocol and he discovered that silencers are considerably more effective at protecting hearing than even the best ear protection. In fact he notes that for some firearms current hearing protection does not reduce the noise below the level for hearing damage at all.
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/18/0194599811398872.abstract
This doctor knows more about hearing loss and damage than any politician or cop and he also knows how to properly collect sound data from suppressed firearms.
His study shows that current hearing protection is not sufficient to prevent hearing damage but sound suppressors are able to prevent hearing damage. This is the technical smoking gun .....
That was probably me. The term "silencer" is commonly used by most of the industry insiders (I should know cause I know most of them). It is used interchangeably with the terms "sound suppressor" and "can". The world's leading expert on silencers, Al Paulson even used this term on the cover of both of his books.
The only people who prattle on about how the term "silencer" is not technically correct are those who have never had any experience with a real one.
To anyone who thinks a modern silencer can't "silence" a gun, I am more than happy to demonstrate several firearms that are spooky quiet, the dominant sound being the "click" of the firing pin drop. That is about as silent as it gets.
That was probably me. The term "silencer" is commonly used by most of the industry insiders (I should know cause I know most of them). It is used interchangeably with the terms "sound suppressor" and "can". The world's leading expert on silencers, Al Paulson even used this term on the cover of both of his books.
The only people who prattle on about how the term "silencer" is not technically correct are those who have never had any experience with a real one.
To anyone who thinks a modern silencer can't "silence" a gun, I am more than happy to demonstrate several firearms that are spooky quiet, the dominant sound being the "click" of the firing pin drop. That is about as silent as it gets.
Heck, I have seen some long barreled .22lr rifles with certain brands of ammo that sound very similar to a pellet gun. Screw a can on the end of it and it would be dead quiet.
Trust me, once you have some experience with a silencer you won't want to go back to shooting without one. I hate shooting unsuppressed now. I forget to bring hearing protection to the range now cause I am so used to shooting safely without. It is a liberating experience.
The very first silencers were made to fit military LE and 98K's. They were generally based on grenade launching cups. A silencer does not require a threaded muzzle to be fitted to a rifle. There are lots of options. The only things difficult to suppress are shotguns and revolvers. Everything else is a piece of cake.
Huh? One thing I find about the internet is that it is always best to HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT before you spout off a load of crap. Modern silencers will outlast several barrels. There are rifle caliber silencers out there with documented lifespans hovering around 40,000 rounds.
The cost of a suppressor in the US is high because of the regulatory $200 tax. Customers want a durable, high tech silencer if they are going to pay the $200 tax, which results in very sophisticated and thus expensive silencers.
In countries with little regulation concerning silencers, prices are much lower because customers don't insist on super high tech designs. Silencer prices in New Zealand and Finland are surprisingly low.
No. Silencers work very well with supersonic ammo. The bang from the muzzle represents the majority of the noise associated with firing a shot. A typical centrefire rifle will produce a muzzle signature of roughly 165 dB. Add a decent silencer and that will come down to around 135 dB. A .22 rimfire rifle will meter around 140 dB without a silencer.
The sonic flight noise is approximately 150 dB one meter from the bullet's path. However that noise is extremely high pitched which means it dies out in the atmosphere very quickly. The shooter is never directly exposed to the sonic crack because the noise moves away from the flight path at a 90 degree angle like the wake of a motorboat on a calm lake.
